The sacroiliac joint is the joint between the sacrum and the ilium of the pelvis, which are joined by ligaments. In humans, the sacrum supports the spine and is supported in turn by an ilium on each side. The sacroiliac joint is a synovial joint with articular cartilage and irregular elevations and depressions that produce interlocking of the two bones.
Pain associated with the sacroiliac joint can be caused by traumatic fracture dislocation of the pelvis, degenerative arthritis, sacroiliitis an inflammation or degenerative condition of the sacroiliac joint, osteitis condensans ilii, or other degenerative conditions of the sacroiliac joint. Currently, sacroiliac joint fusion is most commonly advocated as a surgical treatment for these conditions. Fusion of the sacroiliac joint can be accomplished by several different conventional methods encompassing an anterior approach, a posterior approach, and a lateral approach with or without percutaneous screw or other type implant fixation. However, while each of these methods have been utilized for fixation and fusion of the sacroiliac joint over the past several decades, substantial problems with respect to the fixation and fusion of the sacroiliac joint remain unresolved.
A significant problem with certain conventional methods for fixation and fusion of the sacroiliac joint including the anterior approach, posterior approach, or lateral approach may be that the surgeon has to make a substantial incision in the skin and tissues for direct access to the sacroiliac joint involved. These invasive approaches allow the sacroiliac joint to be seen and touched directly by the surgeon. Often referred to as an “open surgery”, these procedures have the attendant disadvantages of requiring general anesthesia and can involve increased operative time, hospitalization, pain, and recovery time due to the extensive soft tissue damage resulting from the open surgery. A danger to open surgery using the anterior approach can be damage to the L5 nerve root which lies approximately two centimeters medial to the sacroiliac joint or damage to the major blood vessels. Additionally, these procedures typically involve fixation of the sacroiliac joint (immobilization of the articular surfaces of the sacroiliac joint in relation to one another) by placement of one or more screws or by placement of one or more trans-sacroiliac implants (as shown by the non-limiting example of FIG. 1) or by placement of implants into the SI pedicle and iliac bone. Use of trans-sacroiliac and SI pedicle-iliac bone implants can also involve the risk of damage to the lumbosacral neurovascular elements. Damage to the lumbosacral neurovascular elements as well as delayed union or non-union of the sacroiliac joint by use of these procedures may require revision surgery to remove all or a portion of the implants or repeat surgery as to these complications.
Another significant problem with conventional procedures utilizing minimally invasive small opening procedures can be that the procedures are technically difficult requiring biplanar fluoroscopy of the articular surfaces of the sacroiliac joint and extensive surgical training and experience. Despite the level of surgical training and experience, there is a substantial incidence of damage to the lumbosacral neurovascular elements. Additionally, sacral anomalies can further lead to mal-placement of implants leading to damage of surrounding structures. Additionally, these procedures are often performed without fusion of the sacroiliac joint which does not remove the degenerative joint surface and thereby does not address the degenerative condition of the sacroiliac joint which may lead to continued or recurrent sacroiliac joint pain.
Another significant problem with conventional procedures can be the utilization of multiple trans-sacroiliac elongate implants, which do not include a threaded surface. This approach requires the creation of trans-sacroiliac bores in the pelvis and nearby sacral foramen which can be of relatively large dimension and which are subsequently broached with instruments which can result in bone being impacted into the pelvis and neuroforamen.
The creation of the trans-sacroiliac bores and subsequent broaching of the bores requires a guide pin which may be inadvertently advanced into the pelvis or sacral foramen resulting in damage to other structures. Additionally, producing the trans-sacroiliac bores, broaching, or placement of the elongate implants may result in damage to the lumbosacral neurovascular elements, as above discussed. Additionally, there may be no actual fusion of the articular portion of the sacroiliac joint which may result in continued or recurrent pain requiring additional surgery.
Another substantial problem with conventional procedures can be that placement of posterior extra-articular distracting fusion implants and bone grafts as described for example in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/797,481 of Stark may be inadequate with respect to removal of the articular surface or preparation of cortical bone, the implant structure and fixation of the sacroiliac joint. The method may not remove sufficient amounts of the articular surfaces or cortical surfaces of the sacroiliac joint to relieve pain in the sacroiliac joint. The implant structures described may have insufficient or avoid engagement with the articular surfaces or cortical bone of the sacroiliac joint for adequate fixation or fusion. The failure to sufficiently stabilize and fuse the sacroiliac joint with the implant structures and methods described by the Stark application may result in a failure to relieve the condition of sacroiliac joint being treated. Additionally, the method of driving apart a sacrum and ilium as described by Stark may lead to mal-alignment of the sacroiliac joint and increased pain.
The inventive sacroiliac fusion system described herein addresses the problems associated with conventional methods and apparatuses used in fixation and fusion of the sacroiliac joint.